HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1975 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMbI'iSSI~~
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, July 23, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I'. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Marshall, Martin, Woodward
and Zambetti
Absent: None
Commissio'ner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the read-
ing of the July 9, 1975 Planning Commission meeting be waived, and that ~hey be
approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections:
(1) misspelling of word "fell" on page 1, UP-239; (2) misspelling of Mr.
Tersini's name on page 3 under V-427. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Callon gave a detailed report of the City Council meeting of
July 16, 1975. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City's
Administration office.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company, Prospect Road, Request for Use
Permit to Allow the Construction of an 8-Ft. High Storage Shed to be
Erected in the West Valley Freeway Right-of-Way; Cont'd from July 9~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review by the Sub-
division Committee and Staff. Chairman Marshall directed UP-239 be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1975, and referred-this matter to
the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
B. V-427 - Osterlund Enterprises, Radoyka Drive, Request for a Variance to Allow
the Construction of an 8-Ft. High Fence along the Rear Property Lines
of Tract ~5631 (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.4); Cont'd from July 9~ 1975
Chairman ~rshall reopened the public hearing on V-427 at 7:46 p.m. Note was
made that this matter had been continued pending agreement between the appli-
cant, Santa Clara County and the school district abutting the Tract's property
relative to maintenance of~ landscaping along the Lawrence Expressway side of
theiproposed 8-foot high sound buffer fence. Further note was made that the
County had indicated r esp0~sibility for maintaining such landscaping, and
consequently, a Staff RepoEt had been prepared recommending approval of this
variance request. Commissioner ~hrtin reported that the Variance Committee
had made an on-site inspection of this property; and they felt if the applicant
could reach an agreement with the County for maintenance of landscaping, the
variance should be permitted. Relative to installing landscaping along the
school side~.of this fence, Commissioner Woodward reported that the Variance
Committee did not feel the developer should be required to install and main-
tain landscaping in this area in that there were~'d'f~{Fien~ trees currently !
~ont~ school property near this proposed fence. j ......
Staff pointed out that ~o letters had been received from the County relative
to maintenance of landscaping. The following points were made in these letters:
-1~
~ JULY 23~ 1975 ~NUTES ~
II. B. V-427 - Osterlund Enterprises - Tract #5631 - Cont'd
'(~Y"'~e[ter dated July 14, 1975 enclosed policy a'~d 'plan sheets regard'i~'~
County improvement of and County Master Landscaping Plans for the
Lawrence Expressway; further, the letter stipulated t~at any work per-
formed within the Expressway area as part of Tract 5631 would have to
be in conformance with a County-issued encroachment permit.
(2) Letter dated July 16, 1975 gave a statement of County'policy regarding
maintenance responsibility of landscaping within the Lawrence Expressway area
as follows: "The County will maintain the landscaping within the Expressway
right-of-way, at the sole expense of the County, when the landscaping is in
conformance with.the master landscaping plans for that area of expressway."
Staff noted that the County indicated via a telephone conversation that they
would be providing, installing and maintaining landscaping along this fence,
and that they would be so doing this within 6 months to one year. Further
note was made that mature olive trees would be planted along this area to
further embellish the landscaping plans by the County.
Commissioner Belanger and Chairman Marshall expressed a desire to have the
applicant install the landscaping at this point, but Mr. Loewke pointed out
that the County had expressed a strong objection to this. It was explained
that the County would be installing the pathway, and landscaping would be in
the way at this point. Commissioner Belanger stated that she was not willing
to let County policy "plan our community. They might decide that they do not
have funds in the future, and may not be able to install this landscaping."
Chairman Marshall agreed with this position, and called for a more positive
commitment from the County. Staff pointed out that if the Planning Commission
required the applicant to install landscaping at this point, an encroachment
permit would be needed from the County, and the applicant might not be able
to obtain such. Additionally, it was noted that the County would install its
own buffer fence and landscaping if the applicant did not do so.
At this point, the matter of Design Review application A-480 was addressed.
After discussion, the Staff Report was amended by the Commission as follows:
(1) The following sentence was added to the third paragraph under Project
Description: "Design variations may be required to meet County standards."
(2) The words "the applicant" were stricken from the phrase "the applicant
installs said plants," in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph under
Project Description.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the public
hearing on V-427 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the
public hearing on V-427 was closed at 8:07~p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission approve V-427 in accordance with Staff Report dated July 16, 1975.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-480 per
Exhibit A and L, and subject to the Staff Report, as amended by the Commission,
dated July 16, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Belanger pointed out that she voted to approve these matters
"because of the obvious necessity of the situation." She requested, however,
that V-427 and A-480 be agendized for Commission meeting in 6 months in order
to determine the status of the County's landscaping progress. Chairman
Marshall also directed Staff to send a letter to the County regarding the
action taken on these matters, and further expressing the Commission's concern
relative to County timetable on landscaping plans.
Construction of an Addition to an Accessory Structure
within a Required Rearyard Necessitating a Reduction of the R~quired
Rearyard SeeS~ck'~Fom 25-Ft. to 10-Ft. (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on ~428 at 8:13 p.m. Note was made that
-2-
.; JULY 23~ 1975 ~NUTES
II. B. V-428 - Robert C. Truax - Cont'd
the variance Committee inspected th~'S~t-~-and that '~'~t~ff Report had be~"prepa~d~
Staff made the following findings: (1) the large expanse of.~pen spaC~_r~presented
-' by PG&E, Southern Pacific railroad and Santa Clara Valley Water District proper!ties
were permanent open space;. (2) strict enforcement of the conditions of the Zonihg
~O~'dln'~ {~'6~l'd'n'~t deprive the applicant of .priVileges enjoyed by the owners of
'6~her property 'cl'assified'{n'th~ sam~ zoning D~strict; (3) approval of this
variance would not constitute granting a special privilege in that this situa-
tion would not normally be paralleled elsewhere in similar zoning districts;
and (4) approval of this variance would not adversely impact the general public
health, safety or welfare, nor would it be injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity. The point was made that this variance request did not fully
comply with the objective criteria set forth in Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS-3,
specifically that interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wo~ld result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incon-
sistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The point was made that
Mr. Sifferman, president of the Saratoga ~or Homeowners Association, had also
-_ ~spected this on-site and ha~..in~i~atej _a~ceptance.of the caband addition.
A._gre~t deal of discussion ensued, and the following points were made:
Insomuch as the size of the structure would be quite large, concern was
expressed that in the future, this structure might be converted into a
second residence. Several of the Commissioners felt that by granting this
variance, the City would be creating a multiple use on an "R-i" lot, and
that it would indeed be difficult to police the installation of cooking
facilities in the future. Chairman Marshall hoted that in the past the
City had been dedicated to single-family resi~ential~ and he urged that
the City not encourage anything which might lead to duplicate housing on
a single lot.
· Under Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding variances, 5 criteria
for granting variances were cited. It was pointed out that all put the
hardship criteria had been met; however, Chairman ~rshall pointed out that
in the past the Commission had interpreted the ordinance in such a way that
all 5 criteria must be met before granting a variance. ~ny of the Commis-
sioners felt that granting this variance would constitute a special privi-
lege in that this hardship criteria had not been met. A point was made
that granting a variance with regards to a caband was not "of a hardship'
atmosphere." If was felt by some of the Commissioners that by granting such
a variance, a precedent would be set for other property owners abutting
rights-of-way and easements to also build within setback limitations.
· Questions were raised on whether this proposed addition should be classified
as a caband or as a guest house, and according to the definition of a caband,
it was determined that this addition could not be termed such. Reference
was made to Zoning Ordinance Section 3.2(d) relative to guest houses being
classified as accessory structures. Reference was further made to
Section 3.7-1, Accessory Structures, which stipulated a need for a use
permit in a rearyard if an accessory structure exceeded 6-feet. Note was
made that the reason a variance was required on this matter was that
according to Section 3.7-1, if an accessory structure exceeded 250 square
feet (which this did), it was required to meet a 25-foot rearyard setback.
· The point was made that the proposed structure would not interfere with
neighbo~ since the b~kyard was abutting power lines and easements which
could not be bUil~ upon. Commissioner Callon contended that the zoning
ordinance and setback requirements were "built into the government structure
in order to protect the value of the property of the homeowner and to pro-
tect his neighbors from encroachments on their viewS, air space and use of
their own property." She stated that she felt that insomuch as this
structure would not be causing a hardship on neighbors, "government should
interpret on behalf of the individual rather on behalf of law." She added
that the applicant was not b~aking the zoning ordinance by having a multi-
ple residence, and ~e indica[ed that ~man~ ~f the concerns expressed about
a possible conversion to a second residence in the future were not appropriate.
-3-
; JULY 23~ 1975 ~NUTES
B.-~428 z Rober.t C._ TruaX .- Cont'd .o
® The question was raised as to whether there were other plans available which
would not require a variance. Commissioner Woodward suggested that a parti-
tion be erected in the present cabana which would create a sitting room/
bedroom area, thus only necessitating the need to build on a bathroom.
Mr. Truax explained that although the near-range intention of this addi-
tion was as living quarters for his mother-in-law, the long-term purpose
would be as a recreational room. He argued that they wished to use the
cabana for recreational purposes during the time that his mother-in-law
was residing with them, and that a partition would not be suitable for this
purpose.
The suggestion was made that the structure be added toward the swimming pool
-°-Yi'd'~'~f'e~[ accessory structure in orde~"[~0~ require a variance. Mr. TruaX
stated that, besides this requiring the tearing up of concrete and being a very
costly action, he felt such an addition in that location would "defeat the
purposes of the zoning regulations because it would be~'~nsi~h't'r~yT"'H~'~'in"~d"
out that such an addition .would_cover all but about 8-f~ee '0f th'e existing
cabana's windows, that itswould "look like a factory," and that it would not
answer any of the other i~s~s ~RiS~'b'y the Commission. Commissioner Callon
added that if the applicant was required to build the structure towards the
pool, this could be interpreted as creating a physical difficulty. She
therefore contended that the remaining criteria of the variance section
could be interpreted as being met, and the Commission could grant the
variance.
In answer to the above-mentioned comments, Mr. Truax argued that, relative
to the accessory structure objective of a 25-foot setback, he felt that
the variance being requested was more than compensated for by the existence
of more than 150-feet of open air space in his backyard, and the addition
of abutting easements.and rights-of-way which could not be built upon.
Mr. Truax pointed out that no neighbors objected to the addition, and stated:
"Regulations are made for the protection of the people, and if there are no
people to protect, then the regulations become simple bureaucracy." He con-
tended that he could not be responsible for future possible violations by
someone else putting in a kitchen, and pointed out that the City had control
over this situation now in that it still had to approve his plans;~further,
that if such cooking facilities were indeed installed by someone else in the
future, this would be an illegal use.
At th~s time Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that
the public hearing on V-428 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the public hearing was closed at 9:06 p.m.
Commissioner }~rtin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that application
V-428 be denied. The motion was carried; Commissioners Callon and Lustig
voted no. Chairman ~rshall advised Mr. Truax that he could appeal this
decision to the City Council within 10 days.
D. V-429 - CRI Properties, Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Williams, Request for a Variance
to Allow a 20-Ft. Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 35-Ft-'. Set-
back and'to Allow an Increase in the Maximum Allowable Building Site
Coverage from 20% to 25% for Lot "C" (Ordinance NS-3.31)
The Secretary pointed out that Staff had anticipated receiving landscaping
plans from the applicant prior to this meeting in order that the Design Review
application (A-488) and V~429 be addressed concurrently; further, that these
landscaping plans had not ~7et been received. Chairman Marshall directed V-429
be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1975, and re-
ferred this matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for further review and
report.
-4-
JULY 23~ 1975 }RNUTES
II. E. C-179 - Albert Hanson', 13761 Dolphin 'Drive, Change of Zoning Request from
R-i-20,000 (Single-Family Residential,' Low Density) to R-1-12,500°
(Single-Family Residential, Medium Density) the Parcel Designated as
Parcel 65 of Book 391 at Page 37 Located on ~he Northeast Corner of
Allendale Avenue and Dolphin Drive (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18);'-
Continued from_July 9, 1975'
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review. The applicants
were present and indicated acceptance of this recommendation. Chairman MarShall
directed C-179 be continued to the-Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1975,
and referred' this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further
review and report.
RECESS: 9:15 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
III BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
.... A. SDR-I192 L Robert Way, Bountiful Acres, BUilding Site'Approval-- 1 Lot'(Exp~res
August 8~ 1975)~ Continued from July 9~ 1975
Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant tentative building site approval to aRplication SDR-1192 per
Exhibit A filed June 20, 1975, and subject touche conditions, General and Speci-
fic, of the Staff Report dated July '17, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SDR-1193 - Astro Co~struction~ La Paloma Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
· (Expires August 7~ 1975);' Continued from July 9~ 1975
Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff pointed~ out that
this was a legal non-conforming lot, and that the map complied with all setbacks.
Commissioner Belangeromoved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1193 per
Exhibit A~I filed July 21, 1975, and subject to the conditions, General and
Specific, of the Staff Report dated July 17, 1975. The motion was carried
................. unanimously.
/~.I~. C. SDR-1194 - J.C. LaGuisa Pierce ~ad, BUildln~'~lte"Approval - 2 Lots (ExpiY~'s
August 13, 1975); Continued from July 9~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further study. Chairman
~rshall directed SDR-1194 be continued to the Planning Cmnmission meeting of
August 13, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
D. SDR-1195 - Larry Hoffart, Sobey Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
August 12~ 1975); Continued from J~ly 9~ 1975
Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this item, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff pointed out that
this site had a 10% slope which required that design review approval be required.
Commissioner Belanger recommended the following sentence be added to Condition
(L) of the Staff Report: "This will include review of grading of the site."
The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report with
amendment.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1195 per
Exhibit A filed June 25, 1975, and subject to the conditions, General and
Specific, of the Staff Report dated July 17, 1975, as amended. The motion was
carried unanimously
-5-
JULY 23 ~ 1975 MINUTES
III. E. SDR-1196 - Geneva Quickert, Quickert Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires August 12~ 1975); Continued from July 9~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review. Note was
made that the applicant had been requested to submit a letter granting an ex-
tension to the next Planning Commission meeting, but no such letter had yet
been received.
Con~nissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission deny application SDR-1196 subject to receipt of a written extension
to the Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1975. The motion was carried
unanimously.
F. SDR-1197 - David and Steven Brown, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval 1 Lot (Expires August 13~ 1975); Continued from July 9~ 1975
Note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The Commission indicated
a desire to address the Design Review application (A-490) concurrently with this
application.
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewedYA-49
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Brief discussion was
had on the height of the structure, and it was noted that such height did not
exceed 30 feet. Commissioner Lustig commended the architect and owner on the
design of this house, stating that he felt they had done a nearly perfect job
of fitting the house into the surrounding environment.
Commissioner Bela~ger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1197 per
Exhibit A filed June 25, 1975, and subject to the conditions, General and
Specific, of the Staff Report dated July 17, 1975. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-490 per Exhibit
A and subject to the Staff Report dated July 16, 1975 with special note to the
$500 cash bond required for landscapen~creening of deck support posts. The
motion was carried unanimously.
_________
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-391 - George Day Construction, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design ReView Approval
1 Lot (Tract ~5327, Lot ~5)
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-391, Lot 5 of
Tract 5327 per ExhiBit N-1 and the Staff Report dated July 17, 1975. The motion
was carried unanimously.
B. A-480 - Osterlund Enterprises, Radoyka Drive, Final Design Review Approval -
Fencing for Tract ~5631; Continued from July 9~ 1975
See Item I-B.
C. A-483 - James Skinner, Pierce Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from J~ty 9~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending submission of new p~ans.
Chairman ~rshall directed A-483 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of August 13, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
-6-
JULY 23~ 1975 ~rNUTES--' _'--
IV. D. A-484 - Thomas Fryer, Saratoga Hills Road, Final Design Review Approval 1 Lot
Continued from July 9~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review. Note was
made that it had been Staff's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that a
variance would be needed. Mr. Van der Tooren, applicant's representative, was
present and wished to contest this interpretation.
f Mr. van der Toorren pointed out that_--final building site approval on this mat-
ter would expire on August 13, 1975, and that he had attempted "in'~e~y way"
to expedite completion of the tentative map approval conditions prior to that
expiration date. He complained of having experienced some difficulties with
Staff in scheduling review of his plans with the Design Review Committee, and
contended that unless the Commission made a~'de~ination on whether a variance
would be needed, he would not get the oppor[~'~ity'to hav~ his present plans re-
viewed by the Design Review Committee. EXplanations were given at this time by
Mr. Loewke, the Secretary and Commissioner Woodward relative to the schedule of
events on the applicant's Design Review plans. The point was made that the
Design Review Committee had requested the initial plans be revised to resolve
problems; and that these revised plans had been submitted last week and still
contained unresolved issues, one of which was a needed r~commendation from the
Fire Chief regarding turnaround and driveway entrance. The Secretary noted
that Chief Kraule had orally communicated with him on this matter July 2!,L 1975~__
which~left an insufficient amount of time in which for the Design Review
Co~i~'~'~'5 r~vxew the appilCat{on.'
~"Mr. van der Toorren stated that St~ff had m~d~ .a determination that a variance
wSuld'be needed, and he argued that the Commission'should review this matter
and make the determination instead of Staff. He cited Section 14.6, Yard Require-
ments -- Measurements, as being the basis for his request, and he pointed out
that the Planning Commission had previously approved a tentative map showing
the setback in question to be 20 feet. The Secretary noted that the issue was
what was considered the front yard. He pointed out tha~ according to the defi-
nition of a corridor-lot (Section 1.2(y)), area of an access corridor should
not be included in determining the site area of a corridor lot. Insomuch as
site area determines the buildable area, this definition was relevant. Staff
cited Section 1.5(y), Lot Corridor, Section 1.5(tt),'Site Area, and Section 1.5
(hhh), Front Yard, as being the basis ~or its determination that a variance
would be needed. The point was~fUrther made'[h'~ at ten~ati~ map approval,
the applicant had shown the locatiSn of the'p~0p~sed 'hOuse as facing to the
north, not to the east as was presently proposed; further, that the Planning
Commission could not, at the time of tentative map approval, grant automatic
variances. Chairm~n Marshall pointed out that historically the Commission
.det~Ymined frontyard lines based on orientation of the street to the house, and
the house to the site.
Chairman Marshall pointed out that the proposed house faced to the east; and
according to ~e:~io'~.6 and the definition of a site area, he concurred with
Staff's in~rp~et~fion~that this property was an irregularly-shaped lot, with
the fronty~rdoproperty'line defined as the easterly line 240.55 feet long plus
the length'of the stem of the flag; therefore, that the frontyard setback should
be measured from that point. After consideration of these points, it was the
consensus of the Planning Commission that a variance would be needed if the
applicant wished to pursue his present proposed plans.
E. A~488 ~ C~I Properties, Saratoga-Sunnyvale and William~ Final Design Review
Approval - 3 Lots; Continued from July 9~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued concurrently with application V-429.
(See Item II-D) Chairman Marshall directed A-488 be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of August 13, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design
Review Committee and Staff for further review and report.
F. A-~90 - David and Steven Brown, Saratoga Hills Road, Final Design Review Approval
1 Lot
See Item III-F. -
-7-
~ = ~ JULY 23, 1975 ~NUTES_O
IV. G. A-491 - Matt Voros, Arroyo de Arguello, Final Design Review Approval ~ 1 Lot
Continued from J~ly 9~ 1975 -
No~e was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending.approval. Commissioner Woodward
pointed out that the Committee reviewed the site, and that she felt the design
plans had come a long way from what was originally submitted.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-491 per Exhibit
A-1 and subject to the Staff Report dated July 16, 1975. The motion was carried;
Commissioners Belanger and Marshall voted no. Chairman Marshall explained that
his vote was based on the fact that none of the Design Review Committee members
really seemed to like the design planS.
H. SS-87 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Final Design Review Approval
--Temporary Festival Banner - Big Basin Way
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had ~eviewed this on site, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial of the request unless the-
applicant agreed in writing to correct deficiencies relative to the specific
requirements of Final Design Review application A-463. Staff pointed out that
two letters dated July 15, 1975 and July 22, 1975 respectively, had been received
from_.th~__applicant which addreSSed these deficiencies. Discussion followed on
the ~o§pedific d~'ficien~£es relative to A-463 as listed in the SSL87 Staff Report,
and the corrections thereto as stated in the letters jfrom the applicant.
· It~n 1 of the Staff Report referred to the sign not consisting of raised
bronze sculptured letters. The applicant"s. letter of July 15th pointed
out that the sign was the standard logo of the Association, and the
applicant at the meeting pointed out that the color of the sign was
standardly painted with terra cotta gange ~CS-2371 paint.
After discussion of this, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner
Zambetti, that the Staff Report on Design Review application A-463 dated
January 8, 1975 be amended to state that the sign in the front of the Western
Federal & Loan Association building should have raised letters and should be
painted with terra cotta gange ~CS-2371 paint. The motion was carried;
Commissioner Belanger voted no in that the original Staff Report called for
"raised bronze letters" which indicated bronze metal, not bronze-colored letters.
· Item 2 of the Staff Report referred to spot lights mounted on the roof.
The applicant's letter of July 22nd assured the Commission that the first
3 roof-mounted lights on the side would be removed by August 1, 1975.
(Commissioner Lustig verified that this had been done.) Further, it was
requested in the letter that the remaining flood light in the rearyard
elevation be allowed to remain for purposes of illuminating the large oak
tree on the property. Commissioner Lustig pointed out that the Design
Review Committee had reviewed this on site, and that this request had met
with the Committee~s approval.
Ac~ordin~ly',"CSn~n{S~ioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig,
that the Staff Report on Design Review application A-463 dated January 8, 1975
be amended to include that the one spot light on the rearyard elevation be
all~ed to illuminate the oak tree. The motion was carried Unanimously.
· Relative to points 3 and 4 of the Staff Report regarding the installation
of flagpoles and flagpole spotlights, the applicant's letter of July 22nd
indicated that only 2 flagpoles would be set, as was approved by A-463,
and that there would be no flagpole spotlights.
Specifics of application SS-87 were next addressed. Staff noted that this
application was for a temporary banner for a "blu~ grass festival," a promo-
tional outdoor activity to be held on August 2, 1975. Commissioner Belanger
asked if there was a provisi~n for such an activity, expressing concern that
the Commission give consideration to whether the City wished to encourage
these types of activities in that grand-opening events might not necessarily
be public-interest events. Note was made that although the Zoning Ordinance
did not address grand opening-type events, these acvitivies were allowed
under City Code.
-8-
'= ~ JULY 23~ 1975 MINUTE~
IV. H. SS-87 - Western Federal Savings & Loan - Cont'd
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application SS-87 for a temporary
banner per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated July 17, 1975 subject to a change
in the Recommended Action, and in accordance with conditions outlined in the
applicant's letter dated July 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
I. SS-88 - Saratoga Village Merchants Association, Blaney Plaza, Final Design Review
Approval - Temporary Festival Banner
Note was made that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter, and that
a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff explained that
this festival was spopsored by the Village Merchants to advertise "Artist in
Action Week." I~en n'~te was made that the banner had already been erected,
the Secretary explained that originally the request for this banner had been
submitted to the City Manager for a use permit under City Code provisions.
Consequently, by the time this matter had been addressed by the CitX Council,.__
thYevent preparations.~ad already started and the need for a temporary sign
permit was p~t~due~=!.t~was pointed out that th~ City ~ouncil had expressed
a desire that Staff establish a more clearly-defined procedure for handling
such events. Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt the Commission should
address this issue,'Land give special attention to how many such events they
felt would be appropriate annually, and what sort of organizations should be
allowed to sponsor such events.
At this time, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application
SS-88 for a temporary banner in Blaney Plaza per Exhibit A and the Staff Report
dated July 16, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
V. E~IRON~NTAL I~ACT DETERMINATIONS ~
Staff noted that there were no Negative Declarations filed for the period of
July 10, 1975 through to-date.
VI. ~SCELLANEOUS
A. quito Area Study - Continued from June 25~ 1975
Staff reported that it had been proceeding with the idea of looking at individual
applications in the. Quito area on a one-to-one basis, but that because of the
extreme width of many of the streets within the area, there were problems
within this approach. Staff stated that these problems might warrant special
setbacks in front yards because of the large amount of open space in the streets,
and therefore might call for setting up a special zone to cope with the area
problems. Discussion followed, and it was determined that the Variance Commit-
tee, in conjunction with Mr. Loewke, would continue reviewing this matter and
report to the Planning Commission on progress of such review.
B. SDR-1176 -'.L"'yngso Garden ~aterials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,_ Building.
/Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expirati.~n Extended to~July 23, 1975);
Continued from Ju~e ~57'I9~5 !
The Secretary pointed out that this matter should have been placed on this
meeting's agenda but had not, and he noted that a letter had been received from
the applicant granting an extension to the Commission meeting of August 27', 1975.
Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1176 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of August 2~, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee
and Staff for further review and report.
VII. CO~L~ICATIONS - WRITTEN
The following written correspondence were introduced into the record:
A. Letter dated July 10, 1975 from Mr. D.J. Sifferman, President of the Saratoga
~nor Homeowners Association, in response to questions asked by the City
relative to the Association's organization.
-9-
'r ~- JULY 23 ~ 1975 MINUTESO
VII. I~ITTEN CO~RINICATIONS - Conrad
B. Memorandum from the League of California Cities relative to Planning Commissioners'
Institute to be held between July 30-August 1, 1975 in Coronado, California.
C. Letter dated July 14, 1975 from the Planning. Director to James P. Hardy,
President of West Valley Community College ~in response ~'%he Commission's
request that tennis court lighting be addressed.
= D. Letter dated July~.!~,1975 from Planning Director to Mr. Alan Rubnitz in
response to the Connnission's request that Mr. Rubnitz be advised of Commission
VII. COM~RINICATIONS - ORAL
A. The matter of Subcommittee organization was addressed. The following assign-
ments were given:
LA~ DEVELOPmeNT CO~IITTEE: Chairman ~rshall
Alt: Commissioner Belanger
SUBDIVISION CO~%TTEE: Commissioner Belanger - Chairman
Commissioner Callon
Commissioner Lustig
Alt: Commissioner Zambetti
DESIGN REVIEW CO~RTTEE: Commissioner Woodward - Chairman
Commissioner Zambetti
Commissioner Lustig
Alt: Chairman Marshall
VARIANCE COmmiTTEE: Commissioner Mmrtin - Chairman
Commissioner Woodward
Commissioner Lustig'_i
Alt: Commissioner Callon
PLANNING POLICY CO~IITTEE: Commissioner Zambetti
Alt: Commissioner Woodward
B. Chairman Marshall welcomed Councilwoman Corr to the meeting, and expressed
appreciation to the Good Government Group for serving coffee.
VIII. ADJOU~N}~NT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning
Commissionnmeeting of July 23, 1975 be adjourned. The mstion was carried, and
the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
M~rty Van Duyn, ~tary
s kw
-10-